Re: w3m -> standard, lynx -> optional
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 09:41:42PM +0100, Mateusz Papiernik wrote:
> I agree, that lynx is somehow past thing, and is not really friendly to
> the end-user. But why w3m, and not e.g. links (eLinks acctually)? What
> really important advantages it has against links? As I noticed, w3m
> can't render page while downloading, and user must wait to finish, if he
> wants to see the page.
Also the upstream author of w3m was very vocal on the idea that w3m is
not a browser; but a pager.
I remember once sending a patch to him to implement a
"homepage"/"start page" preference but he dropped it saying that it
was designed for reading local files.
(e)links is a much more capable browser with support for backgrounding
and many other tasks. Apart from the evilness of the name sounding so
like lynx it's a much better choice IMHO.
# Debian Security Audit Project